Our district is very strict and the only exception is if the family is moving out of the district no sooner than May 1, they may finish the year up. No outside waivers are ever granted. We are a big district that has just spent a boat load of money expanding our schools, so if you want Johnny to live with Aunt Martha because our district is better than yours, Aunt Martha has to go through the courts to get legal custody papers for the enrollment to go through (and actual event with names changed). And the schools are ever watching for 'transfers' simply for sports participation. And it is not a snobby attitude to not want kids in your schools if the kids don't live there. I want to live in a few neighborhoods in my county, but unless I hit the lottery, it will never happen and I don't begrudge the people who do live there because they worked for their money to live at a means I cannot. I guess I am a snob for not wanting the kids from the bordering district in our schools fraudulently simply because that district is known to be a lower socioeconomic area, not for the fact that I don't pay taxes for those kids to get the education in my district. The woman talked to the OP and made enough comments to the OP for her to infer that she can't afford to live in that neighborhood. It does not make the OP a snob, it is reality. Fountains...you said she has said she works for the city. Is it the city you live in, or are you a suburb? Because where I live if you are a city employee, you must live in the city. That is something to look at because either way she is lying to someone.

I moved to a rural school district so my kids could attend school there.

I had to provide previous school records, my voter's registration card with the new address and a copy of my new property deed. After calling several times to make sure of the requirements I was surprised when they also asked for a utility bill (but that's for another thread in life).

This is a very popular school district, particularly for sports because it is a smaller district (3A if that helps anyone). Almost everyone gets to play - a lot. It is also a Recognized Academically Superior district.

I know for a fact a number of students attending there do not live in the district. Their parents either pay the district a fee for letting them attend or they are cheating the system somehow. I don't have the time to report every one of them, nor do I have the time or energy to spend proving they don't belong there. Do I resent it - sure, it means my child is probably not getting the individualized attention she would with smaller classes and she would get to play her sports a little more. Plus the taxes other parents outside of the district pay are going to their school and not to ours... I can't police everyone, it is the district's responsibility to make and follow their own policies and rules.

If the enrollment was so high my own child might not get in - yes I would give them a list of violators and get involved until this problem was resolved. Would I give the violators a headsup so they could come up with new paperwork (forged/phony or not) - heavens NO!

If your gut tells you to report her, then that is what you should do. And let the authorities sort out the proof.

However, the situation is not nearly as cut and dried as you originally indicated.1) Having your name on property or a lease outside the district does not prove that is your primary residence. There is such a thing as subletting.2) Not all leases are a matter of public record. They are still valid.3) Unless the letter you got was from the school, you have no idea if the "mail drop" address is the one she registered with the school.4) Many people use offsite mailing addresses for various, personal reasons.5) Neighborhood gossips do not always have the whole truth, nor do they always tell the whole truth.

What I (and it would appear, several other pp's) object to is your air of certainty of what you "just know" - but the only backup you can offer is gossip, suspicion and facts that do not in fact prove what you say they prove. Yes, the situation looks shady. But it does not reflect well on you to go around insisting that you know so much about this woman and her personal information - when you don't really know at all, you just assume.

Except it is the convention on this site to believe OPs. She has certain facts at her disposal and has come to a conclusion. The "neighbor's " actions may very well cheat the OPs child out of a place at school. The school the OP is paying to support, She is asking our opinion based on that conclusion. It is kinder to assume that she is right than to attack her.

fountainsoflettuce, I can understand why you might want to give the woman a head's up if she's going to be investigated. Even if she's committing fraud, she's a sympathetic figure, and no one wants the kids to suffer. A person providing her with a phony address could also get dragged into the legalities.

Since you know her mail drop address, you could send an anonymous letter to inform her there may be an investigation.

Logged

It takes two people to play tug of war. If you don't want to play, don't pick up the rope.

I wouldn't tell her. I would report it as if I had heard some information that she might not live in the area and you wanted to give the SD a heads up rather than reporting anything as fact. Then I would leave it alone, I wouldn't get involved in a witch hunt but I would report it if I felt I had reason enough to believe it true.

I think it is odd a good school division in a wealthy SD doesn't have enough spots for kids in its area. Don't they check around the area and project the amount of kids attending at various ages? In my area, you have a legal right to attend the school in your own area (if you enroll before the deadline) and the SD has to accommodate your kid. If the SD cannot afford all the kids that live there then should they not raise property taxes and expand the school? I wouldn't stand for camping out.

I have repeatedly asserted that the OP should trust her gut and do what she believes is right, and trust the district to sort it out.

However, as several commenters have pointed out, the unnecessary and repeated insistence that the offender could not possibly live in the district because OP believes her to have too-low of an income - EVEN THOUGH IT IS IRRELEVANT to the child's qualification to attend the school - gives the impression of snobbery.

Living in the district is absolutely a qualification to attending the school. If the lowest priced home in my district was $500k, and a parent told me she worked as a counter person at a fast food restaurant, it would be highly unlikely that they were really living in the district. Possibly, if living with a relative or some other circumstance, but otherwise impossible.

Some communities are small enough and wealthy enough that no one with a low income could live there. Pointing that out does not make the OP a snob.

Is this a charter school that is part of the district? There are some districts around here that have them and it is cut throat to get in...parents have gone as far as to try to bribe school board members for their kids to get in!

Which is a long way of saying that the social wheels are greased by kindness and dignity. And it there is such an incredible issue in the OP's community then the way of dealing with it is through the school board and/or other appropriate citizen-facing body - advocating for different verification procedures, etc, rather than repeating gossip and conjecture about one family.

I agree with this. This particular family/situation is one thing, the apparent problem is actually the lack of strict requirement for proof of residence. I would focus my efforts on the larger problem, beginning with asking the superintendent or school board how they monitor residence and how they respond when a family is found to be falsifying address.

As nrb80 points out, McKinney-Vento law guarantees homeless students access to their previous district. Tis is something to keep in mind.

I did not read anything "snobbish" about what the OP has posted. Regardless, it has little to do with the etiquette of what she should do. I think most of us agree that she should report the situation to the powers that be and do nothing more. This has nothing to do with "those kind of people" unless by "those kind of people" you mean "people who lie about where they live to enjoy benefits not available to them."

And I know of very competitive public charter schools in my area that sound like the situation the OP is dealing with.

I have repeatedly asserted that the OP should trust her gut and do what she believes is right, and trust the district to sort it out.

However, as several commenters have pointed out, the unnecessary and repeated insistence that the offender could not possibly live in the district because OP believes her to have too-low of an income - EVEN THOUGH IT IS IRRELEVANT to the child's qualification to attend the school - gives the impression of snobbery.

Living in the district is absolutely a qualification to attending the school. If the lowest priced home in my district was $500k, and a parent told me she worked as a counter person at a fast food restaurant, it would be highly unlikely that they were really living in the district. Possibly, if living with a relative or some other circumstance, but otherwise impossible.

Some communities are small enough and wealthy enough that no one with a low income could live there. Pointing that out does not make the OP a snob.

No one has argued that living in the district is not a qualification. What people are arguing is the assertion that "no one with a low income could live there." There are some low-income people that manage to live in Beverly Hills. This woman could be renting a bedroom in a house in the area for herself and her 2 kids. How she lives is really no one's business but hers.

The OP has been encouraged to support her if she is suspicious that the woman is not really living in the area. But doing based soley on the fact that she has determined she can't be because of her job is premature.

I have repeatedly asserted that the OP should trust her gut and do what she believes is right, and trust the district to sort it out.

However, as several commenters have pointed out, the unnecessary and repeated insistence that the offender could not possibly live in the district because OP believes her to have too-low of an income - EVEN THOUGH IT IS IRRELEVANT to the child's qualification to attend the school - gives the impression of snobbery.

Living in the district is absolutely a qualification to attending the school. If the lowest priced home in my district was $500k, and a parent told me she worked as a counter person at a fast food restaurant, it would be highly unlikely that they were really living in the district. Possibly, if living with a relative or some other circumstance, but otherwise impossible.

Some communities are small enough and wealthy enough that no one with a low income could live there. Pointing that out does not make the OP a snob.

No one has argued that living in the district is not a qualification. What people are arguing is the assertion that "no one with a low income could live there." There are some low-income people that manage to live in Beverly Hills. This woman could be renting a bedroom in a house in the area for herself and her 2 kids. How she lives is really no one's business but hers.

The OP has been encouraged to support her if she is suspicious that the woman is not really living in the area. But doing based soley on the fact that she has determined she can't be because of her job is premature.

The OP is not judge, jury & executioner. If she reports her the school district will have an established method of investigation.

In my high school district (Tie Magazine once called it the best in the country), 8th graders are enrolled directly at their elementary schools. Public, parochial and private students all get a visit from the counsels to register. Anyone else that wants to register must go to the township office (not the highschool). They need absolute proof of residency, and proof of guardianship/parentage. You can't just have your nephew live with you - you need to be his legal guardian.

If someone claimed to be house sharing, the district would already have you flagged. You would need to show your drivers license and file a legal affidavit under oath to verify your address. Our truant officers follow suspicious students home to verify that they actually live there. Every year there are at least a dozen fraudulent students. I feel sorry for the kids, but our district spends almost $20k per high school student. Its grand larceny.

Its absolutely illegal in my village to rent out rooms in your house. If a neighborhood is zoned single family you cannot legally turn your home into a rooming house. You cannot legally rent out your coach house in my village either.

I have repeatedly asserted that the OP should trust her gut and do what she believes is right, and trust the district to sort it out.

However, as several commenters have pointed out, the unnecessary and repeated insistence that the offender could not possibly live in the district because OP believes her to have too-low of an income - EVEN THOUGH IT IS IRRELEVANT to the child's qualification to attend the school - gives the impression of snobbery.

Living in the district is absolutely a qualification to attending the school. If the lowest priced home in my district was $500k, and a parent told me she worked as a counter person at a fast food restaurant, it would be highly unlikely that they were really living in the district. Possibly, if living with a relative or some other circumstance, but otherwise impossible.

Some communities are small enough and wealthy enough that no one with a low income could live there. Pointing that out does not make the OP a snob.

No one has argued that living in the district is not a qualification. What people are arguing is the assertion that "no one with a low income could live there." There are some low-income people that manage to live in Beverly Hills. This woman could be renting a bedroom in a house in the area for herself and her 2 kids. How she lives is really no one's business but hers.

The OP has been encouraged to support her if she is suspicious that the woman is not really living in the area. But doing based soley on the fact that she has determined she can't be because of her job is premature.

The OP is not judge, jury & executioner. If she reports her the school district will have an established method of investigation.

In my high school district (Tie Magazine once called it the best in the country), 8th graders are enrolled directly at their elementary schools. Public, parochial and private students all get a visit from the counsels to register. Anyone else that wants to register must go to the township office (not the highschool). They need absolute proof of residency, and proof of guardianship/parentage. You can't just have your nephew live with you - you need to be his legal guardian.

If someone claimed to be house sharing, the district would already have you flagged. You would need to show your drivers license and file a legal affidavit under oath to verify your address. Our truant officers follow suspicious students home to verify that they actually live there. Every year there are at least a dozen fraudulent students. I feel sorry for the kids, but our district spends almost $20k per high school student. Its grand larceny.

Its absolutely illegal in my village to rent out rooms in your house. If a neighborhood is zoned single family you cannot legally turn your home into a rooming house. You cannot legally rent out your coach house in my village either.

So this guarantees that no low-income people can attend the local school? Otherwise, I am not sure what your point is. I am merely trying to state that the mother's job does not ensure that she cannot live in the district...